Mindfulness and Leadership

In recent years, the construct of mindfulness has gained growing attention in psychological research. However, little is known about the effects of mindfulness on interpersonal interactions and social relationships at work. Addressing this gap, the purpose of this study was to investigate the role of mindfulness in leader–follower relationships. Building on prior research, we hypothesize that leaders’ mindfulness is reflected in a specific communication style (“mindfulness in communication”), which is positively related to followers’ satisfaction with their leaders. We used nested survey data from 34 leaders and 98 followers from various organizations and tested mediation hypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling. Our hypotheses were confirmed by our data in that leaders’ self-reported mindfulness showed a positive relationship with several aspects of followers’ satisfaction. This relationship was fully mediated by leaders’ mindfulness in communication as perceived by their followers. Our findings emphasize the potential value of mindfulness in workplace settings. They provide empirical evidence for a positive link between leaders’ dispositional mindfulness and the wellbeing of their followers, indicating that mindfulness is not solely an individual resource but also fosters interpersonal skills. By examining leaders’ mindfulness in communication as an explanatory process, we created additional clarification about how leaders’ mindfulness relates to followers’ perceptions, offering a promising starting point for measuring behavioral correlates of leader mindfulness

Different Shades—Different Effects? Consequences of Different Types of Destructive Leadership

Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms. From reviewing the literature, we conclude that three major forms of destructive leader behaviors are described: (1) follower-directed destructive behaviors, i.e., genuine abusive forms of destructive leadership, (2) organization-directed behaviors, i.e., behaviors such as stealing from the organization or embezzlement, and (3) self-interested destructive leader behavior, i.e., leader who exploit others to reach their goals. One can easily imagine that these three types of leader behavior have very different effects on followers. Unfortunately, so far, there is no empirical evidence to support this, since comparative research in the field of destructive leadership is scarce. With this paper, we aim to address this gap: In two studies, an experimental and a field study, we examine the differential impact of these three different destructive leader behaviors on two important outcomes: first, their impact on different emotional reactions of followers, the most proximal outcome to a social interaction. Second, we examine a key outcome in leadership research: followers' turnover intention. The results suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior do impact followers differently. Whereas all three behaviors had a positive relationship with negative affect, follower-directed destructive behaviors had the strongest relation out of the three. As expected, all three types of destructive behavior relate to turnover intention, yet, the results of our study suggest that different types of destructive leader behavior relate to different urgencies of turnover intention. We conclude that a tailored approach to destructive leadership, whether in research or practice, seems necessary, as diverse types of destructive leader behaviors affect employees differentially

Can Servant Leaders Fuel the Leadership Fire? The Relationship between Servant Leadership and Followers’ Leadership Avoidance

This study tested the effect of servant leadership on followers’ inclinations to strive for and, in contrast, to avoid leadership responsibility. Results from a study in the health care context, including two waves of data from 222 employees, revealed that servant leadership had a small but positive effect on followers’ leadership avoidance. This effect was influenced by followers’ implicit conception of an ideal leader. Specifically, servant leadership was found to reduce leadership avoidance when the congruence with the followers’ ideal leader prototype was high. Furthermore, followers’ core self-evaluations and affective motivation to lead mediated the relationship between servant leadership and reduced leadership avoidance. Implications of these patterns for theory and practice and avenues for future research are discussed

Felt or Thought: Distinct Mechanisms Underlying Exploitative Leadership and Abusive Supervision

The last two decades have seen a mounting fascination with unethical and destructive forms of leadership. Yet, do we know what all encapsulates this “dark” side of leadership? Despite initial evidence that exploitation is a notable addition to the unethical leadership scene, our understanding of its distinctiveness as well as of how and why it exerts its negative effects is limited. We speak to this gap by testing the distinct mechanisms through which exploitative leadership—relative to the more popular counterpart, abusive supervision—affects followers. Borrowing from the aggression literature, we describe exploitative leadership and abusive supervision as varying forms of aggression that undermine followers’ satisfaction with the leader via altered experiences of their social exchange relationship. Our theoretical model proposes that abusive supervision, as an inherently interpersonal provocation, primarily implicates followers’ emotional experiences within the social exchange process. By contrast, given its inherent focus on self-interest, exploitative leadership is assumed to affect followers primarily through the cognitive understanding of the social exchange. Results from multiple studies using different samples, measures, and research designs provide general support for our predictions. In sum, the evidence emerging from our data shows that exploitative leadership is not a symptom of construct proliferation but rather, adds cumulative knowledge to the field of unethical and destructive leadership

Felt or thought? Examining distinct mechanisms of exploitative leadership and abusive supervision.

Over the last years, there has been a steady increase in research on destructive forms of leadership. However, less attention has been paid to the question whether and to what degree different yet related destructive leadership behaviors may exert distinct effects on followers. In this research, we seek to address this question by testing the differential effects of abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership on followers\u2019 satisfaction with the leader and turnover intentions. Borrowing from justice theory, our theoretical model proposes that abusive supervision, as an inherently interpersonal provocation, impacts followers mainly through the mediating influence of negative affect towards the leader. In contrast, exploitative leadership, with its inherent focus on leader self-interest, is expected to affect followers mainly through cognitive means, i.e., perceived imbalance in social exchange. Results from two studies provide general support for our predictions. Study 1 was a two-wave field study, confirming the differential effects of abusive supervision and exploitative leadership on negative affect and perceived imbalance in social exchange. Study 2 used an experimental vignette approach, supporting that the obtained effects are causal. Moreover, it found that the effect of abusive supervision on negative affect was mediated by perceptions of interpersonal injustice, whereas exploitative leadership affected imbalance in social exchange perceptions through perceived distributive injustice. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of what destructive leaders actually do and how different destructive behaviors impact followers in unique ways

Does the place make the people? The role of leadership and work climate for moral and prosocial socialization in the workplace

The research project is funded by the German Research Foundation. The project is concerned with the personal development of humans throughout their professional lives. Goal of this research is to better understand how specific aspects of organizational contexts (such as the organizational climate and leadership) influence personal development of workers (focusing moral and prosocial aspects) over time